Kuakini Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990225067
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Honolulu, HI, USA
Phone
8085479231
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,401,565
Expenses
$1,394,918
Assets
$13,456,529
Liabilities
$13,949,306

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GREGG OISHI (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGG OISHI (PRESIDENT & CEO): $395,406 total reported compensation
  • KAMAL MASAKI (DIRECTOR): $40,324 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of kuakini foundation is to improve the health status of the community by: providing comprehensive health care services and programs at reasonable cost; continuously improving the quality of health care services and programs; encouraging clinical research; supporting training and educational programs for health care personnel; and offering health education and community service programs. Kuakini foundation is responsible for developing a broader base of community financial support through fundraising activities including annual fund drives, special donor events, multi-year fundraising campaigns, endowment programs, and charitable planned giving programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Kuakini foundation is responsible for developing a broader base of community financial support through fundraising activities including annual fund drives, special donor events, multi-year fundraising campaigns, endowment programs, and charitable planned giving programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.65; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.04; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $395K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.